People v. Hale
| Decision Date | 25 February 1988 |
| Citation | 44 Cal.3d 531,244 Cal.Rptr. 114,749 P.2d 769 |
| Court | California Supreme Court |
| Parties | , 749 P.2d 769 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Brian Darle HALE, Defendant and Appellant. Crim. 22206. |
Bradley S. Phillips, Los Angeles, for defendant and appellant.
Marc Turchin, Deputy Atty. Gen., Los Angeles, for plaintiff and respondent.
John K. Van de Kamp, Atty. Gen., Steve White, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., Gary R. Hahn, Robert F. Katz and Marc E. Turchin, Deputy Attys. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.
Defendant was charged with two counts of first degree murder (Pen.Code, § 187), 1 one count of robbery (§ 211), and one count of attempted robbery (§§ 211, 664). Each of the two murder counts was accompanied by a special circumstance finding of robbery murder (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)(i)) and multiple murder (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(3)), and in each of the four counts it was found that defendant used a firearm within the meaning of sections 12022.5 and 1203.06, subdivision (a)(1). This appeal under the 1978 death penalty law is automatic. (§ 1239, subd. (b).) Because the trial court failed to hold a competency hearing pursuant to section 1368 after specifically ordering one, 2 the entire judgment must be reversed.
In the early morning hours of October 2, 1980, Clarence Temple, 63 years old, left his home in Bellflower to take his daily walk before work. Temple customarily took his billfold containing a driver's license, credit cards and social security card. On the morning of his murder, Temple had between $100 and $150 with him. At 5:23 a.m., Richard Tamplen was on his way to the bus stop when he found Temple lying face down on the sidewalk near Rosecrans and Lakewood Boulevards. No one else was present. Tamplen noticed a stream of blood running from Temple's head, and notified police after observing no signs of life.
A Los Angeles deputy sheriff arrived at the scene and noticed what appeared to be a gunshot wound to the base of Temple's neck on the left side below and behind the ear. A .22-caliber shell casing was found near Temple's body. The casing was taken to the sheriff's crime laboratory for ballistics testing. The right rear pocket of the victim's pants was partially pulled out and no wallet was found.
The following day, after removing an expended .22-caliber bullet from Temple's body, the medical examiner determined that the cause of his death was a gunshot wound entering the neck and traveling into the head. The bullet was delivered to the sheriff's crime laboratory for testing.
On October 8, 1980, 69-year-old Herman Silber was shot to death in the parking lot of the Cerritos Mall. Andrea Nelson, an employee at the Cerritos Mall, was conversing with a fellow employee when she observed defendant and Silber together in the parking lot. While driving out of the lot, Nelson felt a large shock; she described it as a backfire. When she glanced in the car's rearview mirror, she saw Silber slumping down between the cars and falling to the ground, and noticed defendant rummaging through Silber's pockets. Nelson then backed her car until she could see Silber on the ground and defendant, who was kneeling, looking up at her.
Nelson identified defendant to Walter Kerr, who was walking outside the mall with his wife. Defendant left the area on foot and both Nelson and Kerr attempted to follow him, 3 but they eventually returned to the scene and provided the police with a description. A short time later, a deputy sheriff detained defendant on a street near the Cerritos Mall and found a small .22-caliber sterling automatic handgun in his possession. Nelson and Kerr identified defendant to police officers at the scene of his arrest. They were positive that defendant was the same man they had observed at the scene of the murder. Defendant was then arrested.
Deputy Sheriff Christensen, a firearms identification examiner, studied the expended bullets and cartridge cases from both the Temple and Silber murders. Christensen concluded that the bullet obtained from Temple's body and the shell casing found near Silber's body were both from defendant's gun. The expended bullet removed from Silber's body, however, was too distorted to allow a positive identification comparison.
On October 20, 1980, a preliminary hearing was held at which defendant exhibited abnormal and bizarre behavior. 4 The magistrate initially continued the matter and appointed two psychiatrists to examine defendant pursuant to section 1368, but later vacated the appointments and proceeded to a preliminary hearing that same day. During the hearing, defendant continued to make bizarre comments and was shackled with leg and waist chains throughout the proceeding. After defendant was held to answer, he was admitted to the psychiatric unit of the Los Angeles County jail and treated with antipsychotic medication.
At defendant's arraignment on November 3, 1980, he again made inappropriate and bizarre responses. Following the prosecutor's reading of charges and in response to the court's request for waiver of further reading of the information and a statement of constitutional rights, defendant stated: Defense counsel then indicated: "As to the plea, there's to be a reference to the defendant under 1368 for an examination." The prosecutor responded that the motion was "well taken." The court then declared a doubt as to defendant's present mental competency based on his conduct and demeanor in the courtroom. 5
Defense counsel responded affirmatively to the court's inquiry whether, in counsel's opinion, defendant was incapacitated or mentally incompetent pursuant to section 1368 such that he was either unable to understand the nature of the proceedings or to assist in the conduct of his defense in a rational manner.
The court initially appointed two psychiatrists, Drs. Saul Faerstein and Walter Hofman, to examine defendant at the county jail and to report their findings in writing to the court. The matter was then continued to December 3, 1980, for a hearing "on the question of the defendant's present mental competency." Evidently, the hearing was never held. 6
Dr. Faerstein submitted his report on November 24, 1980, and reached the following conclusions regarding defendant's present mental condition:
Defendant was examined by Dr. Hofman on December 2, 1980, approximately three weeks after Dr. Faerstein's examination. Dr. Hofman expressed the opinion that "[defendant] is able to understand the nature and the purpose of the proceedings against him and to cooperate with counsel in presenting a defense...." The doctor noted, however, that defendant was "deeply entrenched in a delusional system with some improvement in that he has been on medication."
The trial court, at defendant's request, appointed a third psychiatrist, Dr. Davis, to examine defendant. In a report dated December 30, 1980, Dr. Davis concluded that defendant suffered from "schizophrenia, paranoid type," but that he was in remission because of medication given at the Los Angeles County jail hospital. Dr. Davis opined that defendant was competent to stand trial although he felt defendant "was insane at the time he committed the offenses," he "should be committed to a state hospital," and that defendant "is a danger to the safety of others."
After Dr. Davis submitted his psychiatric report, defendant's case was called for trial as scheduled on January 6, 1981. Defense counsel requested a continuance to January 27, 1981, in order to discuss some matters with the assigned prosecutor who was not then in court. The trial court granted the continuance.
On January 27, 1981, the court appointed two additional psychiatrists to examine defendant: Drs. Moskowitz and Stalberg. In its "Letter of Psychiatric Appointment," the court specifically requested both doctors to make section 1368 findings (i.e., to determine whether defendant was "presently able to understand the nature and purpose of the proceedings taken against him" and whether defendant was "presently able to cooperate in a rational manner with counsel in presenting a defense"). Accordingly, we must assume that as of this time the issue of defendant's competency had not yet been resolved by the court.
Dr. Moskowitz submitted his report to the court on February 14, 1981. His examination revealed that defendant suffered from chronic paranoid schizophrenia. Dr. Moskowitz concluded that defendant "has not fully recovered his sanity," and that "[h]e cannot cooperate in a rational manner with counsel in preparing a defense."
On February 16, 1981, Dr. Stalberg reported that defendant was "competent to stand trial." Specifically, Dr. Stalberg opined that defendant
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Wycoff
...874, 756 P.2d 260 [reversing the judgment, observing, "[t]hat the hearing was not held is dispositive"]; People v. Hale (1988) 44 Cal.3d 531, 541, 244 Cal.Rptr. 114, 749 P.2d 769 [absence of competency trial "rendered the subsequent trial proceedings void because the court had been divested......
-
People v. Stanley
...hearing not curable by retrospective determination of defendant's mental competence during trial]; see also People v. Hale (1988) 44 Cal.3d 531, 541, 244 Cal.Rptr. 114, 749 P.2d 769.) Rather, we reject defendant's argument the court's options were limited to the stated Once the accused has ......
-
People v. Masterson
...or her right to due process (Pate v. Robinson (1966) 383 U.S. 375, 377, 86 S.Ct. 836, 837, 15 L.Ed.2d 815; People v. Hale (1988) 44 Cal.3d 531, 539, 244 Cal.Rptr. 114, 749 P.2d 769; People v. Skeirik, supra, 229 Cal.App.3d at p. 455, 280 Cal.Rptr. 175), and under the standard for evaluation......
-
People v. Wharton
...proceedings or to assist counsel in the conduct of a defense in a rational manner" (§ 1367; see generally People v. Hale (1988) 44 Cal.3d 531, 244 Cal.Rptr. 114, 749 P.2d 769), and not whether he was able "to make a reasoned choice among the alternatives presented to him and to understand t......